Skip to content

Month: June 2019

The guy at the end of the bar had some thoughts this morning

The guy at the end of the bar had some thoughts this morning

by digby

Nascar and war in the same breath:

I appreciate the fact that Trump was trying to give Iran an excuse. People on my TV say that it’s likely Trump heard this in a briefing about some intercepts showing that it was some kind of individual over-reaction (or maybe the drone slipped into Iranian airspace briefly of something.) The fact that he says “If I’m right, and I’m right a lot” indicates that he knows something that isn’t public.

Whatever, any de-escalation, however brief, is welcome, even if Trump is playing some weirdly ineffectual good-cop-bad cop routine.

This is the public bad cop. (The inside man is Bolton, of course.)

And then there’s this:

Let’s just hope nobody does anything stupid.

Oh wait …

It’s about Trump, stupid

It’s about Trump, stupid

by digby

Ron Brownstein looks the latest numbers and has bad news for Trump (and Democrats who don’t want to really run against him.)

In his campaign kickoff this week, President Donald Trump demonstrated once again that he is determined to solve a problem he doesn’t have—even at the expense of exacerbating the greatest obstacle to his reelection.

With its extended litany of grievances, dark warnings on immigration, and extravagant attacks on Democrats (“The Democrat party has become more radical, more dangerous, and more unhinged than at any point in the modern history of our country”), Trump’s speech left no doubt that his top electoral priority remains energizing his base of ardent supporters. He sent the same message a few hours before he took the stage with a tweet promising massive deportation raids to remove “the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.”

Even this far from the election, it’s clear that mobilizing his hard-core backers isn’t likely to be a heavy lift. In the most recent national Quinnipiac University poll, 80 percent of Republicans said they were paying “a lot” or “some” attention to the campaign. That’s the sort of elevated number pollsters usually find during an election year itself, and it slightly exceeded the level of interest even among self-identified Democrats.

But Trump’s unrelenting emphasis on stoking that base—both in his rhetoric and through his policies—creates two distinct but interrelated problems for his reelection. One is that he’s providing the fuel for Democrats to mobilize their own core constituencies, particularly young people and non-white voters. The second problem is even more formidable and may represent the biggest obstacle to winning a second term: His polarizing approach to the presidency is alienating an unusually large number of voters satisfied with the economy.

That dynamic clearly wasn’t on his mind at his Tuesday rally in Orlando. He did dutifully tick off a list of economic accomplishments in his speech, but only after an hour of splenetic reliving of old grievances about the Robert Mueller investigation, the media, and Hillary Clinton. He demonized immigrants with sweeping condemnations. He raged, blustered, and summoned his supporters to a battle for survival against Democratic opponents, who he portrayed as not only misguided on policy but as fundamentally un-American in their aims. “They want to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it,” he thundered.

In all these ways, Trump attempted to pump up his base by acting in exactly the manner that pushes away so many voters who are content with the economy but disenchanted with his behavior.

Trump’s tenure is straining one of the most enduring rules in presidential politics: the conviction that a strong economy benefits the party holding the White House. James Carville, the chief strategist for Bill Clinton’s first campaign in 1992, condensed that belief into a four-word aphorism: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Given the low unemployment, strong stock market, and steady growth in total economic output the country is experiencing, some election forecasting models, specifically those that emphasize the economy’s performance, almost all predict an easy reelection in 2020 for Trump.

But polling throughout Trump’s presidency has consistently shown that economic improvement hasn’t lifted him as much as earlier presidents. Across many of the key groups in the electorate, from young people to white college graduates, Trump’s job-approval rating consistently runs at least 25 points below the share of voters who hold positive views about either the national economy or their personal financial situation.

The result is that Trump attracts much less support than his predecessors did—in terms of approval rating and potential support for reelection—among voters who say they are satisfied with the economy.

Long-term comparisons from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll quantify the shortfall. In a 2006 survey, then-President George W. Bush drew positive job-approval ratings from 71 percent of Americans who said they were satisfied with the economy, according to figures provided by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican firm that co-directs the survey with the Democratic firm Hart-Garin Research. Likewise, in 2013 and 2015, just over 75 percent of economically satisfied voters said they approved of Barack Obama’s performance as president.

But in an NBC/WSJ poll last September, only 55 percent of voters in that category said they approved of Trump’s performance. Among those voters, fully 41 percent disapproved. The latest national Quinnipiac survey produced identical results: Among those who called the economy “excellent” or “good,” 55 percent approved of Trump’s performance, while 41 percent disapproved. That’s a huge, possibly unprecedented level of discontent for the president among voters happy with the economy: In the Bush- and Obama-era surveys, no more than about one in four voters who expressed economic satisfaction said they disapproved of the president’s job performance.

Lagging job approval among these Americans translates into their lagging support for Trump in early 2020 tests. In the latest national Quinnipiac poll, the seven in 10 voters who call the economy “excellent” or “good” gave Trump just a meager 51 percent to 43 percent advantage over former Vice President Joe Biden. By contrast, when Obama won reelection in 2012 with the economy still only recovering from the financial crash of 2008, he won about 90 percent of voters who described the national economy as “good,” as well as about 85 percent of those who said their family’s financial situation had improved since his election, according to exit polls at the time. Bush, in his 2004 reelection, also won nearly 90 percent of voters who called the economy “excellent” or “good,” and 80 percent of voters who said their family’s financial situation had improved since he took office.

Similar lagging results for Trump are emerging in state polls. Another Quinnipiac poll released this week asked voters in Florida how their personal financial situation had changed since 2016. Among those who saw improvement, Biden still drew over one-fourth of the vote, compared with just under two-thirds for Trump. In the 2012 Florida exit poll, Obama carried almost nine in 10 voters who said their financial situation had improved. That year, Obama also won almost two-thirds of Florida voters who said their economic situation hadn’t changed; in the Quinnipiac survey, Trump won just one-fifth of those voters, compared with about seven in 10 for Biden.

Even in Republican-leaning Texas, Trump is underperforming. In a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll released this week, a commanding 86 percent of those who said the national economy is “a lot” better off than it was last year said they intended to support Trump for reelection, according to figures provided by Joshua Blank, the manager of polling and research at the University of Texas, Austin’s Texas Politics Project. But among those who said the economy was “somewhat better off,” roughly three in 10 said they intended to vote for someone else. Big majorities of those who consider the economy worse off or unchanged said they plan to vote against Trump.

Why is a strong economy, usually an incumbent’s greatest asset, failing to lift Trump more? One reason, strategists in both parties say, may be that many voters who see positive signs in national indicators, like the unemployment rate and the stock-market averages, still say they are struggling to keep pace with their expenses. Another reason is that public opinion remains equivocal to negative on the most visible elements of Trump’s economic agenda: the tax cuts he signed in 2017, his tariff offensive against China and other countries, and his efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In the latest national Quinnipiac survey, only about 60 percent of the voters who consider the economy strong said Trump deserved credit for it.

Most important, many voters satisfied with the economy recoil from his polarizing style and volatile behavior as president. That problem is most visibly manifest in his unusually weak showings among white voters holding at least a four-year college degree. These are among the Americans at the top of the economic pyramid: Fully 89 percent of them in the latest Quinnipiac poll described their personal financial situation as “excellent” or “good.” (That’s significantly more than the share of non-college-educated whites, African Americans, and Latinos who expressed similar optimism.)

Yet in the same survey, less than half of those white college graduates say they approve of Trump’s job performance. And the share who strongly disapprove (45 percent) far exceeds the share that strongly approve (30 percent.) Matched against Biden in that poll, Trump drew support from only about two in five white college graduates—less than half the share that described their finances as strong. Even in Texas, where Democrats have never matched the inroads they have made elsewhere among college-educated whites, the University of Texas poll found that half of them say they are now inclined to vote against Trump for reelection. Those findings reinforce the 2018 election results that saw Democrats notch big gains in white-collar suburbs around Texas’s major cities, including in House contests and in Democrat Beto O’Rourke’s unexpectedly narrow Senate loss to Republican Ted Cruz.

“A lot of people wrongly characterized the Texas outcome [in 2018] being the result of Beto O’Rourke running against Ted Cruz,” Blank said. “That definitely had something to do with it. But … at least among Democrats, the results in Texas, like everywhere else, were a reaction against Donald Trump.”

Brownstein tweeted this, this morning:

“In 2020, as in 2016, the nation is less likely to divide along lines of class than of culture, with Trump rallying voters uneasy about the nation’s demographic and cultural changes and with Democrats mobilizing those who largely welcome them.”

Striiking new data from @JoshuaMBlank and UT/TT poll: even in TX half of college plus whites say they definitely or probably won’t support Trump for re-election, even though many are thriving economically

The pattern extends to states. In 12, Obama won ~ 90% of Florida voters who said their financial situation had improved since the last election. In latest ⁦@QuinnipiacPoll⁩ Trump wins just 2/3 of FL voters who say that now.

In NBC/WSJ surveys W. Bush received positive job marks from 71% of voters satisfied w/the economy. For Obama it was ~ 3/4. But Trump approval among economically satisfied voters is just 55%. That shortfall could be his greatest risk in 2020. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…

Think Trump behavior doesn’t matter? In 04, W. Bush, as the incumbent, won about 90% of voters who called economy excellent or good. In 12 Obama did too. But in latest ⁦@QuinnipiacPoll⁩ Trump drew only 51% vs Biden w/voters who grade economy that way theatlantic.com/politics/archi…

In his announcement rally Tuesday, Trump again stressed a problem he doesn’t have, mobilizing his base, at the expense of exacerbating the problem he does have: alienating voters satisfied with the economy but alienated by his behavior.

Many Democrats are convinced that the way to win is to ignore Trump and run on the economy. This analysis suggests that a totally out of touch approach to winning converts and mobilizing the base.

.

Isolationism ftw

Isolationism ftw

by digby

That’s Trump’s twitter feed, showing that Trump’s followers are not the isolationist peaceniks too many Democrats want to believe they are. If he decides to go to war, there will be no more bloody-minded war hawks in the land, I guarantee it. It’s who they are.

He blew up the Iran deal, put the Iranian economy into free fall and now the situation is rapidly spiraling out of control as Iran reacts. Shocking, I know…

I’m watching Lindsey Graham saying Iran is the enemy of mankind and Trump has been very patient with them. (Also something about Al Qaeda and how Trump warned Assad not to use chemical weapons and the rest is history.)

Trump says this may have been a mistake by an underling. Perhaps. Let’s hope so. But this is exactly the situation I’ve been worrying about since the morning after election day in 2016.

We wake up today to a fundamentally different world than the one in which we woke up yesterday. The nation our allies looked to as the guarantor of global security will now be led by a pathologically dishonest, unqualified, inexperienced, temperamental, ignorant flimflam man. Things will never be the same. And we have no idea at the moment exactly what form this change is going to take, which makes this all very, very frightening…

The danger of someone making a mistake (or a “mistake”) has always been the one that keeps me awake at night. They know we are led by an impulsive imbecile. They may think they can bluff him or manipulate him and they probably can. With the president trying to get re-elected and the temptation to wag the dog along with the competing hawks in his administration maneuvering for war, we have a very, very dangerous moment manifesting itself. It’s kind of a miracle that it hasn’t happened already.

.

Challenging America’s slave legacy by @BloggersRUs

Challenging America’s slave legacy
by Tom Sullivan

“I want y’all Congress people to deal with issues of economic structure,” economist Julianne Malveaux told a House Judiciary subcommittee on reparations Wednesday. The House is for the first time considering H.R. 40, a bill that would that would create a commission to examine ways to redress the lasting effects of slavery. Titled, “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act,” the bill is sponsored by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Retired congressman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan sponsored the bill every year for thirty years until his retirement in 2017.

The sometimes testy hearing filled three overflow rooms.

The day’s star witness, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, took to task Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over saying, “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea.” Coates’ 2014 “The Case for Reparations” in The Atlantic laid bare the enduring legacy of institutional descrimination that continues in America to this day, over a century and a half after the close of the Civil War that ended slavery in America.

Coates challenged the notion that living generations bear no responsibility for the predations of their ancestors. The United States honors treaties dating back hundreds of years before anyone alive today was born. The nation paid pensions to the heirs of Civil War soldiers well into the 20th century. For a hundred years after actual slavery was abolished, de facto slavery persisted in a political and economic system of discrimination that lasted, and lasts, well into the lifetime of Majority Leader McConnell.

Directly or indirectly, slavery accounted for almost half the economic output of the United States by 1836. BY the time of Emancipation, slaves “comprised the largest single asset in America: $3 billion in 1860 dollars, more than all the other assets in the country combined.” Their death, misery, torture, and uncompensated labors are foundations of this country’s wealth. Yet, a century and a half later, black families still do not share in it:

Advocates for reparations say their cause is misunderstood, and emphasize that it does not necessarily mean the government would be writing checks to black people, though Mr. Coates said he was not opposed to the idea.

Rather, they say, the government could offer various types of assistance — zero-interest loans for prospective black homeowners, free college tuition, community development plans to spur the growth of black-owned businesses in black neighborhoods — to address the social and economic fallout of slavery and racially discriminatory federal policies that have resulted in a huge wealth gap between white and black people.

Coates’ remarks are printed in full here and appear in the video below. An excerpt:

We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader.

What they know, what this committee must know, is that while emancipation deadbolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open. And that is the thing about Senator McConnell’s “something”: It was 150 years ago. And it was right now.

The typical black family in this country has one-tenth the wealth of the typical white family. Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women. And there is, of course, the shame of this land of the free boasting the largest prison population on the planet, of which the descendants of the enslaved make up the largest share.

Beyond the economics, even now vigorous efforts are underway to ensure the continued political marginalization of Americans whose descendants arrived here in chains as cargo. Indeed, they remain an underclass, a legacy of systematic discrimination and oppression to which white people are blind. Only recently has cell phone video of encounters between black men and police officers made visible the America black people experience is not the one that protects and serves white America.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told the House subcommittee, “We as a nation have not yet acknowledged and grappled with racism and white supremacy that has tainted this country’s founding, and continues to persist in deep racial disparities and equalities today.”

The legacy of slavery, as Malveaux hinted, is not only the product of racial animus, but of the brand of capitalism that turned humans into chattel. Slavery may be outlawed, but the economic system that spawned it remains. Perhaps for the first time, it will dawn on members of the new, white underclass that the system that once succored them has, in its color blindness to any hue but gold, made them unlikely allies with descendants of slaves. Then again, that dawning may still be far off.

“There is something odd here”

“There is something odd here”

by digby


This story
has been swirling around for some time, but the new details are just … amazing:

The sun was setting at the Cheeca Lodge resort in Islamorada when Jerry Falwell Jr. smiled for the camera, a national evangelical leader nearing 50 posing next to a young man he had met poolside in Miami Beach.

The photograph shows Giancarlo Granda, a handsome, 20-something pool attendant whom Jerry and his wife, Rebecca, 52, befriended at the Fontainebleau hotel in 2012, and within months, would set up as part-owner and manager of a $4.7 million South Beach hostel.

It was an unusual partnership: The president of the largest Christian university in the world, a school that prohibits gay sex, agreeing to operate a Miami Beach hostel, regarded as gay friendly, in conjunction with a “pool boy” with virtually no hotel management experience after they met at the storied Fontainebleau, a favored South Florida vacation ground for the Falwells. Yet there they were, not only business partners but mingling socially at Cheeca, an idyllic, exclusive resort in the Keys.

The relationship between the Falwells and Granda forms the backdrop of an improbable Miami story that is causing political ripples beyond South Florida. It involves a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, the “pool boy” as he is described in the lawsuit, the comedian Tom Arnold, Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s now imprisoned political fixer, naked photographs — and a Miami father and son who say they were defrauded in a real estate deal then forced to change their names due to “threats.”

It’s a sideshow to the 2020 political campaign that’s just getting started with the first Democratic debate scheduled next week in Miami.

Falwell, 57, who took over the mantle of Liberty University following the death of his father, the Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr., has denied the suggestion that in 2015 he sought help from Cohen, who told Arnold in a surreptitiously taped conversation that he embarked on a mission to recover “personal” photographs involving the Falwells.

Cohen has acknowledged performing delicate chores for the future president of the United States, including paying off his alleged paramours with hush money — to prevent the release of embarrassing personal photographs in the past. In his only known interview about the subject, first reported by Reuters and BuzzFeed, Falwell denied the existence of photographs involving himself.

“This report is not accurate,” Falwell told the Todd Starnes radio show. “There are no compromising or embarrassing photos of me.”

Three photographs have been seen by the Herald, however. They are images not of Falwell, but of his wife in various stages of undress. It is not known who took the photographs or when they were taken, and the Herald was not given the photographs and therefore has not been able to authenticate them independently. Two of the photographs appear to have been taken at the Falwells’ farm in Virginia, and a third at the Cheeca Lodge.

The timing of Cohen’s alleged photo-recovery mission roughly preceded Falwell’s pivotal evangelical endorsement of Trump in the 2016 Republican primary, which Cohen says he helped engineer. Ted Cruz, who became the last candidate standing in the fight to deprive Trump of the Republican nomination, wanted to land that endorsement for himself. That he didn’t get it remains a sore point with some of his backers and a source of curiosity, including speculation that the “pool boy” saga and the presidential endorsement could be somehow related.

“You have the chancellor of the largest Christian university in the world in South Beach, which is not exactly a hot spot for evangelicals to take a vacation, [who buys] a piece of property for someone with no business experience. There is something odd there,’’ said Rick Tyler, former spokesman for Cruz.

There’s more at the link.

I couldn’t help but be reminded of this story about another one of Trump’s intimates:

The peculiar unhappiness of Paul Manafort’s family life is described in excruciating detail in 285,000 text messages from an iPhone belonging to one of his daughters. The messages were posted by hackers on the darkweb last year and provided several damaging stories about Manafort. He goes on trial today, charged with evading tax on tens of millions of dollars from his work as a political consultant in Ukraine. Now, the texts have been published in their entirety on the ordinary internet, where they can easily be searched and read. Previously, Manafort had confirmed the authenticity of some of the messages to Politico. They appear to reveal the private face of the man who was Donald Trump’s campaign manager. It is not a flattering picture.

One daughter purportedly tells another that their father regularly made their mother have sex with a “room full of men”. (It appears that the texts are reproduced with the same spelling and punctuation as originally written.)

“dad tapes it all”

“Poor mom”

“Dad is a sex addict”

Yet more bizarrely, it seems both parents shared these painful secrets with their (grown-up) daughters in an attempt to save their marriage.

“he has too many skeletons, he can’t have a public divorce.”

“the issue was he wanted her to WANT to have the group sex and got upset she didn’t”

“Has mom been tested for STDs?”

It is not merely prurient to reproduce these intensely private exchanges. Paul Manafort was no grey functionary fleetingly hired by Trump to run his campaign, as the White House tried to persuade people when he was charged. It always seems wrong to say of Trump that he has “friends,” but Manafort moved in the same social circles, where it appears that group sex, public sex, or just weird sex was not unusual. This may matter because President Trump now faces allegations that a foreign power, Russia, is blackmailing him with sex tapes.

The situation with the Falwells may be even more uhm … complicated.

Wingnut scolds are always kinky aren’t they?.

.

None of the racist Senators were very fine people

None of the racist Senators were very fine people

by digby

Matthew Dessem at Slate:

Joe Biden, speaking at a fundraiser in New York on Tuesday night, fondly remembered the days he served in the Senate with James O. Eastland, a white supremacist Democrat from Mississippi. The New York Times has this extraordinary description of his remarks:

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Mr. Biden said, slipping briefly into a Southern accent, according to a pool report from the fund-raiser. “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’ ”

It’s not the first time Biden’s ties to Eastland, a man who called the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education a “monstrous crime,” have drawn scrutiny. As CNN has reported, as a young senator, Biden tried to enlist Eastland’s help in his fight to prevent busing in school desegregation. He also had this to say at a Doug Jones rally in 2017:

I’ve been around so long, I worked with James Eastland. Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.

Well, as long as we’re talking about the way things used to get done in the Senate, there’s no reason to settle for Joe Biden’s imitation of Eastland’s Southern drawl: The man can speak for himself just fine. Here’s the senator explaining his thoughts and political positions in great detail on The Mike Wallace Interview on July 28, 1957. It’s great television, but it probably won’t make you feel very nostalgic about James Eastland. 

As anyone who’s read the Confederate declarations of secession knows, it is always instructive to compare the way people are remembered after their deaths with the way they chose to behave and present themselves while they were living. Here’s Biden on Tuesday, lamenting what he thinks has been lost since Eastland’s day:

At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.

Eastland may not have been Joe Biden’s enemy, but that’s sort of the problem, because he was definitely an enemy to his black constituents…

As with our most right-wing Senators today,  Democrats are forced to share space in the government with them and even work with them on discrete issues because they represent some Americans. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz have recently found some common ground on legislation banning former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists.

James Eastland was a stone cold racist.  For a Democratic presidential candidate in 2019 to extoll racists for their “civility” (much less the fact that he didn’t call a white Senator “boy” demonstrating his total misapprehension of what that means) is insulting to a vast number of Democratic voters. To imply that being able to work with someone like Eastland at times is more than just a matter of necessity but rather a belief that people like Eastland are actually good folks you could have a drink with after work is stunningly obtuse.

Biden rightly excoriated Trump for his remarks after Charlottesville in his announcement video.

Doesn’t he realize that his own comments are basically saying that there are “very fine people” on both sides?

.

Ta-Nehisi Coates takes McConnell downtown

Ta-Nehisi Coates takes McConnell downtown

by digby

This is just brilliant:

It is tempting to divorce this modern campaign of terror, of plunder, from enslavement, but the logic of enslavement, of white supremacy, respects no such borders and the guard of bondage was lustful and begat many heirs. Coup d-états and convict leasing. Vagrancy laws and debt peonage. Redlining and racist G.I. bills. Poll taxes and state-sponsored terrorism. We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil-rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader.

Here’s McConnell’s statement. Man … these people:

.

QOTD: Donnie Jr

QOTD: Donnie Jr

by digby

If you want to understand President Trump’s worldview and foreign policy, I think Donnie Jr explained it quite clearly at the rally last night:


“Last week we were in the UK. My father had an incredible visit there with the Queen. They actually had a great rapport. And the media is doing an incredible statistic. They say, ‘Trump has, he has a terrible approval rating in the UK’, you know who else had a terrible approval rating in the UK? George Washington! (crowd roars) 

First of all, it’s a lie. Second of all, I don’t want other countries to love our president. Because that means they know they are taking advantage of America. 

I want them to say, ‘oh man, that guys coming in here, we’d better shape up. We’re not taking advantage of those people.’ 

And just because American politicians have let them get away with it for decades, we’re stopping it NOW!” 

(Crowd goes wild)

Keep in mind that he’s talking about the UK. Our closest ally.

People who think that translates to “isolationism” need to think again.

.

Trump kicks off his 2016 reunion tour

Trump kicks off his 2016 reunion tour

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

President Trump kicked off his 2020 campaign for re-election in Orlando with an announcement that the new slogan for his campaign would be “Keep America Great” instead of the iconic “Make America Great Again,” much to the delight of the crowd. (Trump had filed his re-election papers on the day he was inaugurated and told the press that he’d already trademarked his “Keep America Great” 2020 slogan during his first month in office.)

At the rally, Trump called out the media as usual, saying, “The dishonest media which has published one false story after another with no sources, even though they pretend they have them, they make them up in many cases, they just don’t want to report the truth and they’ve been calling us wrong now for two years.” He promised to repeal Obamacare and drain the swamp. He claimed he was going to rebuild America’s infrastructure and patted himself on the back for his great Supreme Court. He said that under his direction, “gang members and drug dealers” were “right now, as I speak, being thrown out of the country. And they will not be let back in. We will have strong borders again.” The crowd joyfully chanted “Build the wall,” “Lock her up!” and “Drain the swamp!” They were obviously thrilled to be part of Trump’s following. It was quite a spectacle.

No, I’m not talking about Trump’s big rally on Tuesday night. I’m speaking of the one just 29 days after he was inaugurated:

And yes, it was a campaign event:

The Trump campaign billed Tuesday night’s rally as his “official” 2020 campaign announcement — but let’s be serious. He has never stopped campaigning. He held rallies during the presidential transition and throughout the first two and half years of his administration that could in no way be interpreted as anything else. They were all nearly exactly the same as his 2016 campaign. And the one he held this week was little different.

He even went after Hillary Clinton:

If you want to know how the system is rigged, just compared how they came after us for three years with everything they had compared to the free pass they gave to Hillary and her aides after they set an illegal server, destroyed evidence, deleted an acid washed 33,000 emails, exposed classified information, and turned the State Department into a pay-for-play cash machine. 33,000 emails deleted!

In fact, he repeatedly railed against Clinton and Barack Obama’s alleged crimes and malfeasance in office. Strangely he had not a word to say about any of his potential 2020 opponents.

But then, it’s clear that Trump’s fans in the crowd weren’t there to hear any new material. They were like a PBS senior citizen audience gathered to see a line-up of aging 1960s icons perform for fundraising week. They wanted to hear all the hits so they could chant along with all the old familiar slogans and boo and cheer at all the usual punchlines. He even named all the members of the family band:

He did rattle off a list of his supposed accomplishments, lying about the numbers and bragging about his presidential achievements the way he used to brag about his fortune. He called out Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio in the audience to thank them for their service — their service to him, that is. (He even implied that Graham had been struggling until he became a full-blown Trump sycophant, which had to have rankled just a bit.)

And yes he talked about the “Witch Hunt” with all the usual lines of “no collusion, no obstruction.” (Interestingly, the audience didn’t join him in that chant. It seemed as if he expected them to.) And he attacked Democrats explicitly:

The Democrats don’t care about Russia. They only care about their own political power. They went after my family, my business, my finances, my employees, almost everyone that I have ever known or worked with. But they are really going after you. That’s what it is it is all about. It’s not about us, it’s about you. They tried to erase your vote, erase your legacy of the greatest campaign and the greatest election probably in the history of our country.

This was part of his prepared speech on the teleprompter and it was the one departure from his usual rally blather. He said more than once that the Democrats weren’t just trying to destroy him, they were trying to destroy his followers as well. That’s not something Trump says very comfortably because, in his mind, everything is about him. So I wouldn’t expect it to stick. But whoever wrote his speech was clearly trying to incite the crowd to see the coming political battle between Trump and the Democratic nominee as an attack on them.

I didn’t get the sense that the people in that audience really felt that. They were there to see their idol and were just anxiously waiting for the next call-and-response so they could participate in the program. But if the campaign continues with that approach it’s going to be even uglier than we expected.

Trump did talk a little bit about the future. He said that he would cure cancer, eradicate AIDS and “lay the foundation” for a Mars landing in his second term. So that’s exciting. And he told outright lies, saying he would have 400 miles of his wall built before the end of the year. But he never mentioned his latest plan for the immediate future, which he announced Monday night on Twitter:

Threats of mass deportation were a staple of Trump’s rallies in 2016, so it’s odd that he didn’t mention this shocking plan during this Greatest Hits rally in Orlando. It’s usually a big crowd-pleaser. (He did mention it at the White House before he left, denying reports that ICE had been caught off guard and was not prepared to rapidly remove millions of people from the country on his orders.) But it was more than a little disconcerting to see that tweet one day and see this the next:

Trump cares. He considers them “very fine people.” He also knows they are among his most loyal and fanatical fans and you can bet he’s going to be playing their favorite tunes a lot over the next 18 months.

.